-13
America Should Join UK In Banning Chemical Castration For Kids
(thefederalist.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2023
-13 points (33.3% liked)
conservative
967 readers
1 users here now
A community to discuss conservative politics and views.
Rules:
-
No racism or bigotry.
-
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.
-
No spam posting.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
-
No trolling.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Ethical concerns and uncertainty: Gender affirming care for children involves making irreversible decisions that can have long-term physical, psychological, and social consequences. While it is important to prioritize the well-being of children, there is ongoing debate within the medical community regarding the appropriate age at which such interventions should be considered and whether they are in the best interest of the child. Some medical professionals argue that children may lack the cognitive maturity to fully comprehend the implications of such interventions and that it is necessary to approach these matters cautiously.
Lack of long-term research: The field of gender affirming care for children is relatively new, and there is a lack of comprehensive long-term research on the outcomes of these interventions. This means that the long-term effects, both positive and negative, of gender affirming care on children are still not fully understood. Without sufficient evidence-based data, it can be challenging to determine the best course of action and ensure that these interventions are truly beneficial and minimize harm.
Exploration and self-identity: Childhood and adolescence are periods of self-exploration and identity development. Some argue that it is crucial to allow children the freedom to explore and question their gender identity without prematurely committing to medical interventions. Taking a more cautious approach and providing supportive counseling, therapy, and non-permanent interventions may allow for a more holistic exploration of identity, taking into account the child's social, emotional, and psychological well-being.
Ethical considerations of irreversible interventions: Gender affirming care for children often involves irreversible medical interventions such as hormone therapy or surgeries. It is essential to consider the potential impact on the child's future well-being if they later question or regret the decision made during their youth. By waiting until the child reaches an age of greater maturity and self-awareness, they can make a more informed decision about their gender identity and weigh the potential consequences of irreversible interventions.
Parental rights and autonomy: Decisions regarding a child's gender affirming care should be primarily left to the parents, as they are responsible for the well-being of their children. It is important to respect the rights of parents to make decisions they believe are in the best interest of their child, as long as the child is not being subjected to harm or neglect. By allowing a diversity of perspectives and not imposing a single medical consensus, the autonomy and decision-making power of parents can be preserved.
That's very misleading:
https://www.childrenshospital.org/programs/center-gender-surgery-program/eligibility-surgery
The only such permanent physical change available is top surgery, only for 15 year olds and up, and only after the following qualifications:
Informed consent is a reasonable qualification for medical treatment for a something that is clearly a persistent health issue. And none of this is genital surgery.
As for "permanent psychological and social" change, that's a weird thing to take issue with given that any decision in your life could have such an effect. Go to the wrong school, choose the wrong job, wrong career, live in the wrong neighborhood, choose the wrong treatment/doctor for your cancer, thyroid issues, broken leg, cronic illness, etc, it all caries that risk. Life sucks and it has risk, it's unreasonable to expect no risk for anything, especially when it comes to medical stuff.
That's a moot point because the research we do have already shows that GAC is the best option for the health of patients. Why is it the best? Because the alternative is suicide. People with gender dysphoria end up killing themselves when they don't get treatment.
You are exaggerating the permanency of the hormone stuff, it takes a constant source of medication for that stuff. These things aren't overnight changes either. It takes a long while before anything like puberty blockers or HRT is even allowed, there has to be a long medical history of dysphoria prior to that. And I've already covered the misinformation about surgeries above.
Do you know what's even more permanent than all these things combined? Suicide. If I had a Trans kid I would rather have them alive. That's a bigger ethical consideration.
This I can agree with, however:
This isn't right. I would hope you wouldn't say this about other things.
"Gravity? We shouldn't impose a single physicist consensus, we should allow a diversity of perspectives"
Science is the best tool we have for learning objectively about things, including medical. It's a bad move to value it at zero.